Who Needs Men? We Do, You Idiot.
A commenter pointed out this NYT‘s piece entitled “Men, Who Needs Them?” which, of course, is written by some Uncle Tim man by the name of Greg Hampikian:
With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.
That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead. …
Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?
Is this a serious article? What kind of misandrist pens this type of sexism? Common to the NYTs, sure, but his dismissal of men and suck-up-ness (no, it’s not a word, I made it up) to women and his audience is pretty clear. What is his malignant purpose?
***
Cross-posted at the Dr. Helen blog.
Image courtesy shutterstock / Dietmar Hoepfl
More on Men and Women at PJ Lifestyle:
As a boy who lost his father at a very young age, I can say there is no substitute for a dad. Try as she could, Mom couldn’t bring Dad’s perspective and selfless manliness to any situation. I had to seek this out from the fathers of friends and some great uncles, who picked up the slack. This radical feminism, society-without-men agenda is both dangerous and amoral. Here’s a great article about how very important fathers are to a child’s development: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576383464255980534.html
Greg writes from within the secure cocoon that men have created and not just any men – European men. Maybe he has the infamous liberal guilt. Maybe he just has never read history and figured out slavery and war and who protects what and how. Maybe he doesn’t believe in Mother Nature. Of all the great movements in America, the most expendable are liberals – they amount to a suicide cult that aspire to be the characters in The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster.
Libs don’t even understand that the very things they despise the most created their free time and risk-free environment.
- we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely
- women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.
So the “New Woman” doesn’t even need a sperm donor? I guess the Department of Biology at Boise State University where Greg Hampikian is of faculty specializes in “Immaculate Biology”.
I can see the Boise State recruiting posters “Come to Boise State and become ignorant!” and “More State Funding for Stupidity”.
Well, now we know where Todd Akin can get a job next year. He seems well-qualified for a biology professorship there.
Don’t be gauche. Rep. Todd Akin’s remarks were closer to the truth than any of his critics.
Remember, according to the feminists, 1 out of 4 girls at Boise State will be victims of “rape!” Do you see that many pregnancies among ‘em? And there aren’t enough abortions carried out in the Boise area to account for all those pregnancies that should be there (even if we go by cases of “rape!” in police reports alone) if the chance of becoming pregnant after a violent rape is no different than, oh, say an uncontracepted “hook up”.
Try again.
Hint: Take a real biology department human reproduction class and pass it first before ever mentioning Rep. Akin again. You’ll avoid a lot of embarassment in front of your betters.
41% of all rape accusations are false.
This is extremely damaging to the 59% that are actually legitimate, since more and more juries are going to suspect the female accuser of being a Crystal Gale Magnum, and let the accuser go free.
False rape accusations, and the laws that allow them, harm real victims more than anyone.
Can stress get in the way of getting pregnant? | BabyCenter
From the article above:
Akins may have been a little fuzzy on the science, but he had the right idea. He didn’t say a girls couldn’t get pregnant from rape, but that the female body would TRY to shut it down.
@WillyP: No, what Akin said was that it was rare for pregnancy to result from rape. There are some suggestions in the experimental evolutionary psychology literature that there is a mechanism where environmental hostility might affect the retention or survival of a rapist’s sperm (or not — there are other suggestions involving female primates timing their “infidelities”), but the mechanism, if it exists, is insufficiently effective to produce the results Akin imagines. Put plainly, AKIN WAS WRONG. But his error wasn’t offensive except in its ignorance, and Romney adopting a Dem tic and asserting that what Akin said was “offensive” is truly disheartening. (Ryan did better, btw.) But don’t defend the indefensible.
This is what is so frustrating about this issue, the way the National Conservative movement (but not Missourians!) gave in to the bullies. His other points were on target. A rape exception will, based on what we have learned so far, definitely lead to more innocent men languishing in jail. This isn’t even a conservative issue – plenty of lefties have been/are concerned with false accusations.
And if it is wrong to differentiate between types of rape, then please rewrite every single state criminal code, because they all do.
Meanwhile, an aggravated, sociapathic rapist and serial predator (William Jefferson Clinton) is headlining the DNC convention and we say nothing.
Boy Cee State? Say it ain’t so.
Well, fans must look forward to their new all-female football team taking to the Smurf-Blue field this season. I know I will: they just moved into our league…
There is a type of man out there that wants to shove the world’s entire workload on women while they dedicate their lives to watching porn and playing video games, or maybe, in the case of NYT writers, go antiquing.
Just image what would happen if a prominent periodical published an article entitled “Women, Who Needs Them?” The howls of outrage would shake the earth.
Exactly. But part of the problem is that a majority of men will just shrug and say, “it doesn’t affect me” while their rights, livelihood and dignity go down the drain. Speak Up and fight back.
Perhaps a letter-writing campaign to Boise State is in order.
There’s also men who will just dismiss their kids as not their problem. This is unfortunately some of what got this ball rolling in the first place…
A lot of single mothers are not single mothers who set out to find a sperm donor, they’re single mothers who were forced to provide for their kids because they fathers would not.
Women have many options that men don’t. They have half a dozen different kinds of contraception, the right to abortion, the right to give a child for adoption – even the right to leave an unwanted newborn at a police station without repercussions.
Men, on the other hand, are held legally responsible for the woman’s sole choice – often, even if the child is not theirs! There is no comparison.
Women of today have options, but women of not so long ago did not and we’re not talking about birth control, we’re talking about the opportunity for a woman to make a living on her own when things with her husband don’t work out or he dies. That is what got the ball rolling that Mom2twoboys is talking about.
Funny how people tend to think only of the time that they live in and have no idea of how hard it was for women in the very distant past and even not so distant past. It is unfortunate, for lack of a better word, that some how the years of inequality that women had to deal with has now become the inequality of men. You’ve got to do better than just generalizing about women and putting them down as evil, money-grubbing users because you just put off those of us who aren’t like that and actually are your allies in this.
Eva,
The average woman never had it worse than the average man, historically. That is the biggest myth going.
Men were sent to die in wars, while women were kept safe. Of the 300,000 Americans who died in WW2, how many were women? Less than 1%.
Gee, taking care of kids and the kitchen vs. dying on a battlefield, in a mineshaft, or at sea. Wanna trade?
I note that women never take the ‘wanna trade?’ test. Their delusion about historical oppression is against an absolute, but not against the relative condition of men, who had it worse.
The inability of men to conduct real activism is a huge problem, yes.
Part of the reason for this is that the ‘army’ consists only of casualties. Men don’t think it can happen to *them* until it already has.
Shaming is another big factor. Shaming language against men has a visceral effect, which prevents them from speaking up against misandry.
That being said, many younger men are choosing to not play the game (not marry, not work long hours, etc.) This is effective at starving the system..
What on earth is the ‘wanna trade?’ test? Is it some childish, nonsensical mind-exercise in which someone (I guess that’s you) dramatically inflates the tough row to hoe faced by men, and someone equally foolish tries to inflate the traditional lot in life faced by women? Who plays stupid games like that?
If you had any historical sense, you might think of how tough it was to face childbirth at any point in human history before about 1930–I’m guessing cesarean section, often necessary to save the woman’s life, begins to be survivable around then.
I wonder what it was like to have sex, for a woman, when she knew that she might get pregnant and might therefore face death trying to deliver the child without adequate help for the difficult situations that can arise. Look up mortality statistics for women in childbirth in earlier times (before modern medicine).
Euripides, a male writer (obviously) makes his female character (Medea) say that she’d much rather stand in the line of battle than face childbirth.
Obviously, she didn’t have a choice about it, not even if anybody said “wanna trade?”
You will never convince Dr Helen’s pathetic band of misogynists that women are good for anything but sating the occasional urge.
Well said Suzanne and Eva.
Childbirth is not for sissies, neither is war, but neither is marriage for that matter.
Suz,
It was explained clearly. That you didn’t grasp it is because of your mental limitations.
The average woman did not have it worse than the average man, even centuries ago, even in Islamic societies.
You would have us believe that tending to children and managing a kitchen is more oppressive than dying on a battlefield, in a mineshaft, or at sea.
The ‘wanna trade’ test proves that you would not, ultimately, choose to have the life of a man in the 19th century over that of a woman in the 19th century, given how many fatal hardships men have to face.
Now increase your IQ to adult level, and grasp this fact. If all you have is shaming language, it proves my point.
I noticed that Suzanne proved my point perfectly by refusing to take the ‘wanna trade’ test. She used shaming language to get out of being exposed, but even that doesn’t work against a man who knows how women think more than Suzanne herself does.
Which is harder, birthing and tending to children, or dying gruesome deaths on a battlefield, in a mine shaft, or at sea (deaths endured almost exclusively by men, while women were kept safe).
Clearly, answering such a question would force Suzanne to admit that women had it easier than men, even centuries ago.
______________________________________________________
Suzanne, you have virtually no understanding of how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think (unless you’re Dr. Helen) – quite the opposite in fact, as pickup artists have spectacularly proved.
Dear Toads, I have no problem acknowledging the glorious sacrifice of men who face death on the battlefield. I personally would much rather tend children and even cook meals, etc., than face any kind of physical danger.
I can think of little more glorious in the modern era than the ethos of most of the men on the Titanic, a hundred years ago, who chose to go down with the ship while letting the women and children take the places in the lifeboats. Of course, that was rare, and no, it wouldn’t happen today. But some men still conspicuously sacrifice their lives for others–we were witness to such heroism on 9/11 in our own times. There are also men, and some women, in the armed services who make that sacrifice.
I still think “wanna trade?” is babyish. Sorry! ( I hope it was clear to others that I wasn’t pretending that today’s Westernized way of giving birth was especially heroic.)
Exactly Suzanne.
On top of that (women dying in childbirth)imagine a life in which the home you live in is not yours, neither are your clothes or even what valuables you acquired before marriage were not yours either but became the property of your husband. No matter that you cooked and cleaned and even worked to bring money into the home. It was all his and he could do as he wished with it without so much as a by your leave. It wasn’t that long ago that banks would let a husband raid his wife’s account even though it was not his. Imagine a time when a little post partum depression resulted in doctors taking your insides out and forcing an otherwise healthy woman into early menopause. There is a reason they call it a hysterectomy. It wasn’t so long ago that women’s health problems were treated much they way they were in Victorian times, nothing more than hysteria. Those are just a few of the examples of what women have endured through the ages. Women’s lives have not been as easy as some think.
Toads, true, men have a tough life. They die in wars and suffer horrific injuries and get killed in dangerous jobs. But in war, women got beaten, raped and then robbed of everything they had, made into slaves and their children taken from them. You know why we don’t offer to trade? Because we know you won’t let us. If I had a dime for every man who told me that war was man’s work and that they do it willingly to protect their country.One assumes that includes women, so if so many men are willing to put their lives on the line to protect women, as some did in the Aurora shooting, why do you lord it over us?
As I said before, the fighting over who has it worse is not productive. They only reason I bring up some of the things women have endured is to try to show you that women have not just been sitting at home raising kids and whatever else you think they do. War is not a constant in a man’s life. Generations go by without a war. But women, in war and peace, have constantly worked for men and themselves in ways you have not thought of. Since the beginning of time,women have cleaned up after you (imagine having to empty slop jars every day, which wasn’t that long ago either), cared for the sick, cleaned up vomit and wiped away snot, dealt with aging parent’s incontinence and stinking bed sores, cooked, and tended the wounded, washed the dead and prepared them for burial, all the while either working in the field beside her husband when it was needed or working at whatever other job she could find to help make ends meet. Maybe rich women know nothing of these things but the people I come from do. At times one may have had it worse than the other, but by and large there has always been plenty of blood, sweat and tears to go around.
By the way Toads, I never said or suggested that women had it worse.
So basically the crux of your argument is childbirth. Something that an enormous number of women simply don’t engage in.
Not impressed.
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/no-matter-how-good-she-looks-no-matter-how-sweet/365676.html
Remember Greg Hampikian, anal tattoos aren’t just for the girls…
In his case, the tattoo would likely say, “Management not responsible for lost objects.”
A father is extremely important in a child’s life, especially boys. My seven year old son lost his temper and, in his frustration, pushed me. His father immediately intervened and after he punished him, discussed with him what it means to be a man. Our son apologized to me and has behaved ever since. There are some things only a father can give; this event was one of those times.
Well said. The father of my two still has my back when it comes to enforcing discipline and setting expectations. This is absolutely key to their development.
“If men were cars…”
Obliquely, the foolish writer has struck the root of the problem: it takes a world with men to MAKE cars, and refrigerators, and run power plants, and fight wars, etc. I know a lot of very tough broads and when they need a man and none are to hand, that thing simply does not get done. We’re not talking about freaks, here. You’ll need millions of technical women, and they just don’t exist.
Technical women tend to be eggheads, totally unsuited to physical application of their designs. Technical men just are. It is not just muscles, it is the way our brains work. We are more single-minded, which means we follow a path, without deviation, to its conclusion.
Women can do many, many more things at the same time, but, unfortunately, none of them perfectly. In the real world of applied technology, only a grade of 100% counts. All else is just wasted time.
Girls, you’ll have about 2 months after the last man dies. That’s it. Then, you’ll be hunting grubs to eat, and gathering wood to burn. Good luck with that.
There are some people who apparently believe that food comes from a grocery store. They likely believe that cars magically appear on the dealer’s showroom floor, electricity always has and always will be available at the flip of a switch and all of city life’s desires just appear as if by magic.
It takes people to make all of the things that make modern life possible. More specifically, it take men to provide those things. A world without men would very quickly be a hungry, cold and wet place, followed shortly thereafter by the near extinction of the human race.
“A world without men would very quickly be a hungry, cold and wet place, followed shortly thereafter by the near extinction of the human race.”
Do you realize that statment is a feminazi tactic, one I’m sure you deplore seeing them use, but you’re OK using it yourself? Do you really think all women are that helpless? Feminists put men down to build themselves up and in much the same way a lot of men here are pretty busy declaring themselves to be not just indispensable but also being the one and only reason that humanity and civilizations even exist. In other words, they are saying that women are the ones who are not needed. Truthfully, it takes both men and women to make things work. We would be better served to build up both genders instead of all of this ‘we’ are more necessary then ‘they’ are.
He never said that women weren’t needed for society to survive. Of course we need women, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is our sepciality. You have the magic of reproduction, organisation skills and communications skills. We have the magic of superior physical strength (generally) and innovation skills. As you can guess I’m not one to believe that gender is a social construct.
“He never said that women weren’t needed for society to survive.” Actually he did.
Scratch my last comment. What I mean is he suggests that women cannot survive without men. There was a time when that may have been true but not today. Liberal women would bring about near extinction, but not conservative women. A lot of men seem unware of the numbers of women who hunt, have guns for protection (after all you men can’t be with us 24/7) can use power tools and know how to build things. A lot of us are capable of figuring things out for ourselves when necessary. Hopefully it won’t be. I so much prefer a world with men, real men, in it. And you are quite right that men and women bring different talents and skill sets that form a partnership between them but it doesn’t mean we don’t cross over from time to time to another skill set when necessary. Sometimes necessity trumps the whole men’s work, women’s work thing.
It’s not that all women are helpless; far from it, but too many are clueless. If 10% of the competent workers disappeared overnight, we’d have a major crisis in short order. The economy just can’t handle it.
In Afghanistan, 100% of the female work force was sent home and the country’s infrastructure fell apart. Of course, their jobs were filled by men who knew nothing about running hospitals, courts or power plants but some how I doubt that a 10% reduction in the male work force here would cause that much harm. How much reduction in the male work force during WWII occured and how badly did that affect things?
True, a lot of women are clueless and helpless, but generalizations are not conducive to getting women to be sympathetic towards you in this war on men. And I am sympathetic. As a teen I was disgusted by the feminists who were putting men down. I am still disgusted by them and what has happened to men since then.
Funny how you guys can classify real men verses girly men but can’t seem to see that women too can be classified into similar camps.
Eva,
What I was pointing out was that it can be said to be true the other way around. His comment didn’t say that women were not needed. His comment only said that men were necessary in order to survive. Its not a false dilemma that means if men are somehow needed then this means women are not. If women did disappear tommorrow then the same would happen. Civilisation would disappear. Yes, I know a few women can use power tools or build things, but its not enough to cover the loss if every man was to disappear tomorrow. How many women miners do you know and how much can they mine compared to the men around them? You might think the mining industry isn’t worth very much but what we do have left is very necessary. Men are very necessary and so are women. The way I like to view it is that we are not the opposite sex but the complimentary sex. Biologically we have been evolving together for years for our survival.
Eva, let me explain it to you. There are a host of special skills (trades) necessary to enable and maintain modern civilization as we know it. These skills take time to learn. Consider electricity as an example commodity. We expect it to be available at the flip of a switch. Did you know that about 50% of all electricity produced in America comes from coal burning power plants? Go to any coal mine in America and see how many of the miners are women. You’ll find the percentage is very small. Without men, you’re writing off half of all the electricity produced in America. Now, go to the powerplants and see how many women are there maintaining and operating the equipment. Once again, the percentages are small. Without men, those plants would soon cease to function. What percentage of linemen are women? Again, a small number. Without linemen, the grid will collapse. That’s just one example. Go across our civilization’s infrastructure and see the percentages of women who work creating, operating and maintaining that infrastructure. What percentage of machinists are women? What percentage of mechanics, of welders, of construction workers?
It isn’t that women are incapable of learning those skills. It’s that few women chose to do so.
Quite.
Nobody said women weren’t necessary,but you can forgive the ladies for getting that impression when,as far as they are concerned, the argument became about “who is necessary” as soon as our technology made it possible for them to survive without us. Then they immediately decided to kill us off if they could.
One of these women even said in this thread something to the effect of “maybe in the past women couldn’t have survived by themselves,but today it’s different”. Hahaha. No,honey. It’s not. Have the basic existential problems for humanity changed? No, they’ve remained constant while our technological wizardry pushed them into the background so we didn’t have to confront them by ourselves anymore.
The truth is the women of today would have a much harder time coping with Nature red in tooth and claw, as would the men of today. In North America, we used to have something called a “screwfly”,a cousin of the South American botfly,which lays its eggs inside a living host. How would women deal with just THIS natural element? Realistically now, not in a “all things being equal” way. Women would put up with it,suffer from disease and die earlier.
You know what men did? We wiped out the screwfly. Just like we wiped out polio and the black plague. We destroyed those threats. Now most of you women aren’t even aware, on a conscious level, that these threats and others like them existed. You have the luxury of not even having to worry about these threats to the point where you can delude yourself into believing that you would do just as well without men.
That’s what some of these men are saying to you. If we disappeared, you would suddenly become aware of a LOT of threats and problems you didn’t even know existed. Men make your modern life possible,and to be more specific, dead men make your life possible. Our society is a machine fueled by men’s blood.
“War is not a constant in a man’s life.”
Spoken like a woman.
I’ve never served with the Armed Forces,but I’ve been at war with everyone since I was BORN. I’ve had to fight to avoid being shot to death right here on American soil,BECAUSE I am a man. If I was a woman, I would never have to fight at all.
War IS this man’s life. I don’t even know what peace looks like.
I guess the “political and cultural progressivism” cited by Arthur Brisbane only frowns upon selected bigotries.
Let’s rewrite the money quote for race rather than gender:
“White people live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If blacks were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?”
Who thinks such a formulation would enjoy scarce op-ed space in the Times?
http://senatorjohnblutarsky.blogspot.com/2012/08/bigotry-at-new-york-times.html
Let’s try this, as a thought experiment.
“Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need blacks? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis.
“…It’s also true that blacks have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than whites.
“Meanwhile whites live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If blacks were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often?”
Doesn’t look too good, does it?
flipping arguments around like that really is the best way to test them IMO. Its like turning over a rock to see everything under it…
So the woman doesn’t “need” the man to have a child. And if the child is going to be born “male” it could always be aborted. I guess in their utopia there are only women.
Well for that matter women aren’t needed either. Remember Brave New World?
They needed women to donate their eggs. (This is in the book.)
I guess we need to remove the ban on human cloning.
First. The writer is writing to his audience. Real men don’t read the NYT. Second. The evidence belies everything he is writing about. The economics of single motherhood contribute to getting mired in a cycle of poverty for generations. Sons of working mothers seek the company of men. In the urban environments they’re likely to join groups of men. Street gangs or in the case of an Obama, a gang of radical Marxists. There is a need to belong to something.
The reason that men die before women is that man work harder so that women don’t have to. Also, the focus of health care funding is towards women.
“In the urban environments they’re likely to join groups of men.”
Exactly. If you don’t raise your own kids, other people will step in and do it for you. And since your kids aren’t their kids, you can bet they don’t have your kids best interest in mind as they do so.
I always heard that the reason us men die first is because we want to.
Men die first because they work harder? Laughable. Men die first because they don’t take care of themselves.
Well we don’t get as much publicity on the situation like you do. Also we don’t get anyway near the funding for mens health issues that women get.
Mom, that’s what’s known as Not Funny.
We don’t “take care of ourselves” may have something to do with the fact that we have jobs to go to. Jobs that we can be replaced at if we don’t show up. Jobs that we can’t use the implied threat of a “hostile work environment” complaint to the EEOC to keep. Because while “female troubles” works as a medical excuse, guys are expected to suck it up.
When was the last time a guy could use “it’s that time of the month and I don’t feel good” as a reason to go to work instead of the doctor?
“NOT to go to work”
That’s a load of crap. Men die earlier because they ignore symptoms, make poor nutrition choices, drink too much and become couch potatoes.
‘mom2twoboys’ just said an extremely bigoted, misandric thing…
She claims men become ‘couch potatoes’ while all women are great stewards of their health (despite the fact that more women are obese than men).
No, men die early because they do dangerous jobs. 93% of workplace deaths are of men.
Also, medicare and other government programs defund men to funnel money to women.
‘Mom2twoboys’ is repeating discredited lies because she wants to cover for the push to cut men off from healthcare so as to have women get all the resources (even though men are the ones who paid most of the taxes).
Horrible.
Yep. Noticed the same thing. Wait long enough, and the true colors appear. Apparently men are nothing drunkards and couch potatoes. One wonders the respect she has towards the men in her life. Oh a good superficial game to be sure…but deep down? It’s stereotype city.
Mom2twoboys:
“Men die first because they don’t take care of themselves.”
Yeah — that’s because we’re too busy taking care of you.
Yeah…. if men were as selfish as most women, men’s life expectancy would be 20 years longer than women.
And less money is spent on our diseases.
He’s just projecting. His core belief is accurate–women can do just fine without him.
A pitch-perfect tune from the Left, which as always seeks to replace natural and normal relationships with ones mediated by the State.
What I can never figure out is why these people trust an omnipotent State power. Or do they fondly imagine that they, or trusted friends, will always be in control? If so, they’re doubly foolish.
They may be right in that their friends will usually be in control. Where they are wrong is in trusting them.
And on the one-way street that passes for ‘gender equity’ with today’s ‘feminists’, eunuchs like Hampikian won’t notice that in the overwhelming number of cases, men will fix his car, pick up his trash, recover the resources and perform millions of other unpleasant tasks that make his life possible.
And let’s see how a generation or two of feminized, submissive, Ritalin-addled boys fare in a world where their antagonists refuse to live by the decadent West’s effete strain political correctness.
Boys need men to show them, usually by example rather than by instruction, how men behave. Boys also need a disciplined tribe in order to mature to become men. If the boy is lucky he will spend several years learning and growing in a good, well led Boy Scout troop. The boy may also be blessed with the experience of a good school athletic program where he can learn to compete, to win, and to lose.
Absent these, usually positive, experiences and absent a strong and nurturing father figure, boys, too often, will seek out a tribe and a tribal leader to address the boys’ needs, but in the malignant and corrosive experience of gang activity.
Indeed. A society without fathers (except for the initial biological function) already exists: it’s the inner city gang.
And Lefties are ideologically oppsed to personal firearms….
Could get interesting.
When the wolf shows up at the door, this guy will be hiding in the closet with the children.
What is left of culture if you exclude all the works produced by men?
Answer : The gynocentric utopia that we see among chimpanzee tribes.
Make no mistake, most women *want* that sort of existence instead of the modern one we have now in the 21st century.
Freedom to get impregnated by the alpha male is more valuable to them than all the technology and increased life expectancy we have.
Of course the part they don’t realize is that time catches up with everybody, and eventually a new alpha or a gang of betas kills the old alpha, and when that happens, he or they kill all the juvenile offspring of the previous alpha so they don’t have to support them, nor will their mothers divert resources from the offspring of the new alpha(s). Given that law of the jungle mindset, is it any wonder why the plurality of child abuse comes from step-fathers and live-in boyfriends?
Nope because the majority of child abuse comes from the mother.
She’s also the most common cause of child neglect too.
Want to say the government’s statistics don’t show that? Go ahead but first, just look around you and see all the instances in which the bad behavior of females is ignored, excuses, or just defined as acceptable whereas men are blamed and belittled (e.g., the NYT article that gave rise to this latest Dr. Helen commentary).
Want to be a myth buster? Have at it, buster.
Sorry, Toads–sounds like you’ve had terrible luck with women, for which one sympathizes.
But the position you take strikes me as ridiculous in the same way as that of the New York Times guy.
I’m lucky: I’m married to a great guy who’s been the breadwinner all along, while I stayed home as long as possible with the children. I got to tend to all our children’s needs in their early years, and luckily, this was as important to him as to me. I’m now working various part-time jobs to contribute in another way, since the children are grown.
My biggest luck was in getting to raise both a son and a daughter. They are blessings to me, but so, I realize, was the opportunity to have “one of each.” This made it much less likely that I would believe, for example, that girls are systematically oppressed by boys today (huh?), or that one sex was more or less important than the other.
I’m sorry life has treated you so rough, and that you’re so bitter.
Suzanne, I’m sorry you’re so fat…and that you eat small children. You know something that always fascinates me? Women are so quick to put the outlook of a man like Toads down to bad luck with women and bitterness over their treatment by women. Is that because secretly you’re AWARE of how crappy the deal you give men is? It’s not a very great leap of the imagination to assume that one of your kind could have produced an extremely negative bias against your whole sex?
With so low an opinion of your sex,who are the REAL misogynists, one might ask?
The truth is that it is your behavior, as a group, that produces such an outlook and it is not bitterness. It is simply a clear-headed appraisal of stark realities which your sex REFUSES to deal with.
You bring up the suffering women had in childbirth,a biological condition largely remedied by male surgical acumen,to discount legitimate criticism of historical SOCIAL arrangements. Whatever horrors childbirth held, they were BIOLOGICAL in nature. The horrors of the battlefield, and the workplace, prior to male innovation, were entirely a part of the social contract that women of the time WANTED NO PART OF.
Have women EVER had it worse than men? No, I don’t think so.
When work consisted of being lowered on a rope into a methane-filled hole in the ground men did the job without complaining. When conditions improved, women started complaining about being excluded from something they previously wanted no part of.That is a historical fact.
“This is what I mean about a silly argument.
Can you possibly back up your assertion with facts? (You know–like proof?)
No, OK, I thought not.”
So you think 70% of African-American men just walk out on their children,and that money, free housing,and free food given by the government but only if the father DOES NOT LIVE IN THE HOUSE with the children play no part whatsoever in the arrangement of the majority of black families today? You similarly see no correlation in the almost exact matchup of the figures for white women on welfare and 41-42% single mother white households? You don’t think the fact that women initiate 70% of divorces might indicate they’re the ones making the CHOICE to be single mothers?
Maybe you’re still living in Disney princessland, but let me tell you the part that’s got me convinced, EVERY man I know with kids has been kicked out of the house by his wife/girlfriend.That’s all the proof I need. I see it with my own eyes.
Suzanne,
Yawn….. more shaming language from you, due to an inability to debate actual points.
I am actually a pretty well-known pickup artist, which means you would swoon over me, even as I ignore you in favor of attractive women.
The point is, women were never oppressed by average men, nor have average women ever had it worse than average men.
Your entire ‘argument’ hinges on childbirth, which, as I pointed out above, is flawed, and proves your inability to take the ‘wanna trade’ test.
You, Suzanne, simply have no understanding of how women think. And yes, I know more about how women think than you do (all pickup artists do).
“Pickup artists” delude themselves into thinking they really understand women. They know how to manipulate naive women, no more; the real women will always evade them. “Artists” deserve their lives – though sadly they don’t even know how empty and pathetic those lives are.
A man who describes himself as a “pickup artist” is one I know I can immediately discount where opinions about women are concerned. They are wolves, picking off the lame and weak but leaving the herd intact. Like the blind men and the elephant, they believe their entire experience with women is Woman. I don’t have time for that kind of foolishness.
Jamie W,
You have no idea of how women think. And no, being a woman does not mean you know how women think – quite the opposite in fact.
Pickup artist tactics work on all women. YOU are just bitter because once a man learns these skills, he can aim a lot higher than you.
Pickup artists are huge boons of happiness to the women attractive enough to deserve them. They are also morally superior to manginas like Greg Hampikan.
Again, your seething bitterness is transparent. You have a lot to learn about how women think.
“Is this a serious article? What kind of misandrist pens this type of sexism?”
some lonely lib in boise is screaming “mommy” like the little lost child in the mall
methinks this guy(?) wants attention and is paying homage at the lib alter of 2+2=5 hoping to be recalled/repositioned/redeployed to one of the hipster coasts
The funny thing is that the very technology that would make men unneeded, will also make women unneded. Why is there an assumption that once men aren’t needed, that tech will stop?
Also, look no farther than the inner city to understand how things spiral without balance.
In any case this gynutopian society looks to be a dictatorship, else how will they force all the women to only have girl children? Or is the suggestion that women will allow their sons to participate in this nightmare?
A truly cynical me sees some of this stuff as nothing more than trying to build female harems, by manipulating what some women think they want.
First, you get them to substitute govt. for men. Then you pander to their predjudices. Then you control them with govenment, and you mate with as many as you like, as their savior. Is it far fetched?
No, Greg. Women do need men. They just don’t need you.
Dang! Ya’ beat me to it, Matty. ;-p
Get lost, Mr. Hampikian, you loser.
“What is his malignant purpose?”
None.
He is just trying to get laid.
He is just trying to get laid.
Trust me, it won’t work.
Agreed. This is precisely how NOT to attract women. Groveling to women is repulsive to women. With so many blogs out there on how to actually attract women (Roissy, etc.), it is amazing that this mangina is so inobservant.
The second possibility is that, upon giving up home of ever getting laid, Greg Hampikan has decided that being a mangina will at least bring him in proximity of women. Proximity is the most he can aspire to, and he knows it.
Pathetic.
Greg Hampikan is part of the ‘third gender’ forming in the West. He has a special role :
Women want to have sex with macho men.
Macho men want to have sex with women.
Greg Hampikan gets to pay the bills.
Everyone reaches their full potential, so everyone wins!
First – In my opinion it is written to evoke a reaction to forward the narrative of the Democrats NEEDED political war – “Republicans vs. Women”. They truly have nothing else but to whip up the majority (women) to an idiotic premise.
Second – Thanks Dr. Helen for keeping this in the forefront. But a word of caution from an Internet ally – Maybe you’re giving them a needed platform?
Good point; but so far the majority of the bashing seems centered on the author.
Some guy should just drop by his office and punch him in the nose. Women are the Earth, the Mother — they await the seed. No man, no seed. That is why God is envisioned as Male. Men are the Crown of Creation — and their throne isn’t worth a fistful of warm spit without a good strong loving female right there beside them.
I am desperately tired of self-loathing liberal women of both sexes.
I don’t need Greg Hampikian.
Liberals love to bleat endlessly about the “War on Women” that supposedly started in 2010. But their “War on Men” has been ongoing since the 1960s.
Well, if we are no longer needed maybe we can at least still be allowed to exist in the name of “diversity.”
Or perhaps we could go the endangered species route and be protected on those grounds. Indeed, I should think the rights accorded a snail darter would be considered a step up given the current status of men in our society. No one tells snail darters that they aren’t doing it right or that they are unnecessary. They are valued members of our community, of our ecosystem, and the world would come to an end should they cease to exist.
Men on the other hand…
It’s the New York Times. The low testosterone count of the “male” staff there is well known.
What do you expect and why do you bother to read this left wing rag?
It’s always helpful to know exactly what the people who dream of Utopia have in mind. Especially if their definition of same includes the rest of us out.
cheers
eon
Memphis is full of 9th generation bebes’ mamas on welfare. It’s much more about culture than about poverty!
Dr Smith,
Always like your articles. Would like to see more on mental illness issues/trends in the US and elsewhere, and what’s being done by the medical profession in this area. For instance, the Aurora Colorado shooter, we’re told was diagnosed as having psychiatric problems before his murder spree. Can your profession identify such dangerous individuals and effectively treat them before they go over the edge and if so what legal changes might be needed to do this? Another controversial topic you might consider, if you don’t mind touching a high voltage PC rail is what science really has to say about the mental health and development of children raised by those who openly advocate and practice a homosexual lifestyle.
Yeah, the kids are alright. Problem is, they could be better.
When a mangina like Greg Hampikan writes something like this, it reveals WHY he is a mangina.
He is hoping that other men being exterminated would finally cause women to accept him….. he fails to see that despite his groveling, if women actually were to decide which men to keep and which to exterminate, manginas like him would be the first in line for the gas chambers…
But, this is a good sign that anti-misandry awareness is growing. When manginas like this are doubling down, that means they have to work harder and harder to get less and less, which means they are getting squeezed hard..
This Greg Hampikan is a professor at a public university.
I see a ‘Higher Education Bubble’ angle here as well.
Guess what? Men can become fathers without being legally tied to a woman too.
There are already TV ads for surrogacy clinics in India. That there are actually ads on TV shows that the volume of business is getting significant.
Somehow, I doubt that the women who say they ‘don’t need a man’, would allow men the freedom to hire surrogates. We, as a society, don’t seem to have evolved to a point where men can have the same rights as women, in reproductive matters.
A Canadian man, Toban Morrison, is just one of many, who chose to become a single dad via hiring a surrogate.
Two parents are best, but the legal risks to a man that come from marrying a modern women, as well as the fact that a lot of modern women are so immersed in feminism, as to be unfit for motherhood, is causing men to adapt too.
Link for surrogacy TV ad.
I am not sure if Hampikian is serious or joking, so I give two answers:
The modern world was built by men to specifications provided by women,
which is why it is suboptimal, and why it has gotten worse in the last
50 years of increasing feminization of society, made possible by the unprecedented prosperity of those 50 years; The was enough money to
implement a lot of foolish female ideas, and disguise their failure.
When the money goes away (soon: 2-5 years) the world will revert to
its old ways. The only hope of limiting the damage is to find some
way of increasing the percentage of girls who _grow_up_ to become
mature, responsible women.
http://theweek.com/article/index/232372/semen-natures-antidepressant
I wonder if he realizes that sending the message that men are unnecessary to create and raise a child reinforces the social pathology that is the cause of great poverty and delinquency, namely fathers abandoning their child-raising responsibilities? When one says “men are not necessary” the obvious result will be divorce and abandonment. This is obvious. The result will be more children born out of wedlock, less concern about birth control, etc.
And, ironically, this point of view greatly increases the sexist notion that children are purely a woman’s responsibility, to bear, to raise and to take care of. Men have nothing to do with them, so why spend effort or money in raising them. Good luck with that.
There is a huge flaw in your assumption.
Men do not ‘abandon’ their children. Rather, women are single mothers by choice, after using the state to forcibly eject the father against his will.
There are not nearly as many ‘Deadbeat Dads’ as there are ‘selfish moms’.
Single motherhood today is against the father’s will, not for it.
This is what I mean about a silly argument.
Can you possibly back up your assertion with facts? (You know–like proof?)
No, OK, I thought not.
Maybe you could deplore the kind of men who abandon (or never assume a relationship with) their children and the mothers of the children, and also, at the same time, deplore the kind of women who willfully exclude men–except at conception– from their children’s lives.
Suzanne,
Google ‘The Misandry Bubble’ and read it, or have someone intelligent explain at a level you can understand.
It shows the facts about how single motherhood is a selfish choice by the mother, and how the father is expelled from the child’s life by the state, since women are shallow enough to get laws passed that do that.
I consistently see that the father is the parent who usually puts the child first, while the mother puts herself first.
Again, read ‘The Misandry Bubble’ to educate yourself (you need it).
It’s both. Yes, there are a lot of women who unjustly deprive fathers of contact with their children. There are also a lot of boys (I refuse to call them men) who want sex without responsibility and either walk out when the woman gets pregnant or pressure her to have an abortion. Both are despicable.
Complete wrong. Men have no option of ‘walking out’, contrary to what you may wish to believe.
The police track down the father and take ‘child support’ from him very aggressively. At the same time, the ‘child support’ is a payment the woman does not even have to show she spent on the child. The child might be fed rice while the woman buys designer shoes.
The myth that men can walk out, even if they wanted to, is a complete lie. Many men are jailed for not paying ‘child support’ even if they have just lost their job.
So no. The blame for fatherless children, in this day and age, falls squarely on women.
In 1960, only about 5-6% of children were fatherless. This is when men had the supposed ability to walk out.
But now, 41% of children are born out of wedlock. What changed? Women got ridiculously unjust laws in their favor, that enable them to take a man’s money even while barring him from seeing his own child no matter how badly both the father and child want it.
Get a clue.
Who needs men? How about men. If there were no men, there’d be no men. Which means half the “who” in the first sentence wouldn’t exist. What a stupid question to even ask.
Men are not human beings, as per the article. They are no more a part of ‘who’ than squirrels and cats smeared across the highway are part of ‘who’.
Quote:
“With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.”
Rebuttal # 1 Look to the self-styled “African-American’ Community and the preponderance of single female head of househeads, welfare fraud, young male delinquency rates, then repeat that with a straight face!
The classic liberal paradigm: civilization’s most important deal-breaker made the most irrelevant, put at the bottom of the food chain due to the arrogance of success. I really can’t tell the difference between liberalism and a suicide cult. And I’m not joking. Guilt, guilt, guilt.
If they did this in little league the 10 run rule would mean the team ahead would lose. Musn’t damage failure’s egos, must we? Let’s put Muslims in near-Earth orbit and handicap ourselves. Can you imagine a U.N. liberal Olympics?
We’re too good. Just too good.
So, for the NYT author, the ghetto is a utopia? No fathers needed, sust occasional sperm donors.
I think Hampikian may actually be this guy:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-post-gender-normative-man-tries-to-pick-up-a-woman-at-a-bar
I like men. I don’t want a world without you, my dears.
Sara McLanahan must be a man hating psychopath as well as a “sociologist”. No ONE researcher can “show” (as in conclusively prove) ANYTHING. It is laughable that she has “shown” that “it is poverty, NOT the absence of a father” that causes the problems for a child. Oh,REALLY?? Pray, then, explain how children of wealthy parents, such as Chastity/Chaz Bono, some of the famous Kennedys, and Peter and Jane Fonda managed to make such a hash out of THEIR lives. All of THEM had absent or often-gone dads and LOTS of money growing up. People in prison,gang members and the criminals in our midst are overwhelmingly the children of single mothers, not all of whom are poor.
Many OTHER researchers have shown that having the biological father both married to mommy and present in the home makes a HUGE positive difference in the life of a child of either sex. In fact, a good relationship with one’s at-home, married-to-mom, biological father makes one VERY likely to grow up happy,loving,self-confident,law-abiding, self-accepting and mentally healthy,much better equipped to succeed at life than the children of either divorced or never-married mothers.
“As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents.” Of course single-motherhood is one of the leading causes of poverty. But hey, what does that matter to a gender-masochist.
I remember a study from several years ago that claimed that by doing 3 simple things, a person’s chances of ending up in poverty were cut by about 85%. Those 3 things applied more to women than to men.
1. Graduate high school – a high school education doesn’t get you very far today, but you get almost no where without one.
2. Don’t have children until you get married – there’s a very strong correlation between single parenthood and poverty.
3. Don’t get married until you’re at least 23 – young marriages are more likely to end in divorce. See point #2.
Even if, by some miracle of biology, women didn’t men to procreate they would still need men.
Who else would empty the trash and kill spiders?
” What kind of misandrist pens this type of sexism? ”
The type who will do anything to get laid.
Citing life expectancy as a reason to favor an all-female society shows how little the professor understands or values risk-taking. That logical failure is the center of all such “end-of-men” rambling.
He projects his own ineffectuality on all men, and in his searching academic questioning, never stops to ask things like “how does innovation happen,” “how is electricity produced” or “where does food come from.”
You guys need to read The Misandry Bubble. Link follows:
http://www.singularity2050.com/the-misandry-bubble/
http://www.singularity2050.com/2011/01/the-time-has-arrived.html
Cheers -
Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan
Of course, the sociologist is a “her.”
What data? Seriously. Besides, “sociology” and “social science” have become as fraudulent as phrenology, alchemy and astrology.
As to the “man” who wrote that piece: there is a toilet somewhere waiting for his head.
It has occurred to me that there has been a ban on IVORY for some time now.
That probably is responsible for the new low in quality of output from the so-called IVORY TOWERS!
The usual load of liberal crap.
Look at prisons and you will see that the vast majority of inmates had no consistent long term father figure and that is far in excess of the national percentage of fatherless children.
The lack of fathers tend to produce agressive predatory males and disturbed females.